Shawn Sagady

Don't forget the upgraded HDMI port on the BMMCC compared to the super fragile micro HDMI on the BMPCC. That port is that cameras Achilles heel.

They for sure used a lot of comped in smoke in this, especially the foreground stuff. Ideally you just need a really high volume fog machine from Roscoe or LeMaitre (Theatrical companies you can easily rent just about anywhere) and just worry about the frame, not the entire room. You will have limited time to accomplish the shots before it dissipates but if the airflow in the room is not to fast you should be able to build up some really good banks of fog in a short time. EDIT: Heres a link to a solid machine. https://www.rosco.com/fog/vapour.cfm You can rent these from theatrical lighting companies pretty cheap for a day or two. Probably have to pay for fluid but these things can put out a LOT of smoke in a very short amount of time, and the fluid/smoke is all safe for actors and equipment. Just be sure where you are operating does not have particulate fire sensors or you will be getting visits from the fire dept. Also be sure to light your smoke really evenly from the side or front to make it feel denser, lighting from the back will make it feel a bit whispier and glowy.

It's actually an interesting proposal and sounds like it would at least be worth taking coffee to discuss. I am kind of the opposite though I'm a Director / Cinematographer looking for a writing partner and producer. Ive found making my Short Film that the producing part of it is not my cup of tea, I'm making it work for now but would love to have a producer to work with on this and future projects. Also totally willing to give up the mantle of DP/Cinematographer for a person with the right skill set who's not more interested in their demo than the films needs :P Good luck on your hunt, Richard was actually being kind and trying to prepare you for the sometimes negative responses these sorts of posts can attract.

Many of them are not amazing, but they are also made by amature film makers and students and people who just love that particular IP. At the same time it could be said there are a lot of bad short films being made, so its not really specific to fan films. Just be smart about which projects you take and do your best to avoid caustic situations.

If I remember my lessons correct, white debris like that was dirt on the negative, so in theory yeah wet baths are supposed to get rid of things like that but if its something super grungy on the film might not have been caught.

Fan Films have come a VERY long way since the early star trek/star wars fan films back in the early 00s. Technically one of the earliest fan films was "Hardware Wars" a spoof of star wars with toasters and irons and stuff. Fan Films gave me some of my very first experiences working behind a camera in a narrative setting and doing special effects etc and it was a fantastic learning experience. Back in the day it was iffy legally but I think just about every major brand except for Star Trek has embraced them because they are free advertising and press. Lucas was on the fence about the non parody ones but Disney all but pays people to make them now. Budget wise early on it was a lot of people putting in their hard earned money to make the films and getting a lot of support from people giving their time freely or lending equipment etc. These days with crowd funding and easier to access equipment the paradigm has shifted quite a bit. Legally, you are fine personally if you are hired by the creators and work on the film. You have no personal liability in that case. The creators may face cease and desist letters if the owners of the IP feel its a threat to their copyright or trade mark, but thats super super rare, and as long as ALL funds raised go towards the making/marketing of the film and no profit is earned off it, it should be in the clear. As always its a case by case basis but for the most part they are an accepted and sought after part of the fandom these days with some surprising high production quality. I would not worry about working on one, especially if its an IP you love, because the overall attitude of the production tends to be really up beat and fun since everyone is really into creating something new and fun and putting their creative hearts into it.

Yes you can put an iris into a Source 4, this is probably your best bet. The iris must go into the focal plane of the light or it wont have sharp edges.

Always better to overetimate than under. Plan for 8:1 at least and if you end up tighter than that you can sell off the excess stock to recoup money. What you really don't want is to be in the final stretch and suddenly realize you are not going to have enough film and have to come up with more money somehow and get it to the set in time. In this day and age there is no guarantee of availability.

It's just terminology. I am actually very in favor of Storaro's point of view. There is only one director on the set and never should anyone attempt to add confusion about that. As well the terminology is nothing particularly special. Just like a Photographer takes stills, we taking moving pictures for the cinema so cinematographer is completely apt and has no mystical power behind it that one must earn.

The Pocket has a built in screen and terrible internal batteries, you will not be able to shoot long on these so you need a ton or you need an external battery solution. Also both cameras are very light so you will want something to add some weight or stabilization for hand held if you do that. The Micro accepts Canon LP-7 batteries which are very common and can be got from 3rd party vendors very cheap, the camera will last a lot longer on these. You would need an external monitor, but the Micro has a full sized HDMI port vs the mini hdmi on the Pocket which is incredibly prone to breaking, even in the best of situations. You also gain the ability to shoot up to 60fps RAW vs the 30fps on the pocket. I think if you are willing to pay for an external monitor the Micro is a much better camera. It has the exact same sensor, but is better in many other ways. I feel like either camera needs some kitting out no matter what, so id go with the Micro for its improvements over the pocket.

Looks good, I feel like, at least initially, there were a lot of over exposed elements, but I know those DSLRs dont have the most amazing dynamic range unless you hack them and shoot RAW. I would certainly recommend a polarizing filter to help with the blown out skies and such in the future. Lots of fun slow mo and hand held work, would have enjoyed some supported shots as well (a monopod with those DSLRs can go a long way). The edit seemed fine to me, worked to tell the story of the evening and the event, looked like a lot of fun.

Just finished a 2 day shoot on a project I have been acting as cinematographer for over the last three years. As the project is slowly nearing conclusion it was great to come back with all the skills I have picked up since we first started and work with some really classy talent. I'm the big guy in the back with the messed up hair cut. Looking like a muppet was not my plan before working with Peter.. P.S. You can check out the project at http://100monologues.com/ I was the cinematographer for about half of them and I developed the look and feel of the project with the director. An interesting challenge considering our limited budgets and trying to find a middle ground between live theatrical performance and narrative shooting.

Gentleman the last several pages of this once informative thread have become completely derailed by personal attacks and very unprofessional behavior. I am not a moderator or anyone of importance, but please for the sake of the community can we try to salvage this or at least take it to private messages instead of airing our laundry for everyone? Thanks so much. I only cask because I love this place and hate to see this sort of back and forth consume many threads.

One would hope there would be a way to promote a festival based on the merits of the film using some sort of crowd controled voting system to filter out the really bad stuff so the festival organizers do not have to watch every single thing. Then make your money charging entry to see the festival for audiences. But im sure im missing some really important steps here, like where prize money comes from etc.

There is a very real notion that in this day and age you can shoot film or digital for the same price. But the problem is that it only works up to a certain level of production, once you start getting down into indie micro budgets and short film territory it becomes unbalanced. At this level it is a choice you must make that you are willing to raise the additional overhead for the ability to shoot on film vs saving some money and shooting on digital. What is lost or gained is really a personal preference. I can say your calculations have a lot of room for improvement, many labs and Kodak are willing to work with low budget/indie film makers with interesting projects. It is possible to get some significant savings in the 20-40% discount range. Finally I think if you are planning to shoot 40 shorts a year (Its taking me close to a year just to write/plan one 20 minute short) then Digital may be the best answer for you, film is great but It simply might not be the best tool for you and what you want to achieve.

Ah didnt realize you had to raise up, then yes a drone would be your best bet here since it will allow the camera to travel up with out a crane etc. Semi long lens would be helpful just to give you some buffer from the actor. Will you need location sound at all?

Sounds like you would want a steady cam or gimbal with the operator on the front of a vehicle that can follow the actor while walking and biking then step off and move with him up the stairs. Doesn't sound like there are any chances to hide cuts in the wide open like that.

Since you are shooting in day light you really should stop down your lens to make your depth of field very wide and eliminate your focus issues on the long lens. And you should 100% be using a fluid head tripod, hand held or shoulder mount will be too shaky and you will kill yourself. I would also recommend shooting with a circular polarizor to get rid of the glare of the sky and help your subjects stand out from the background a bit more.

In the theatrical world we use filing cabinets and folders or large flat drawers. But they typically use a lot more variations of gel and generally smaller cuts. You might look into something like a portfolio tube for drafting. They are usually water tight and have a strap with lots of room inside.

Robert thats actually a great idea to save, especially if Cinelab can help me out being an indie production. At least based on the student rate sheet wed be looking at some serious savings doing it that way. edit with a pin registered HD telecine then just do 4k scans of the clips we need once the edit is locked. Do you have a number I can call you to discuss details or should I just call the Cinelab line?

I am trying to find a lab to work with for my upcoming short film. Planning to shoot Super16 on Kodak 200T (who are already giving us a really great deal) and am looking for a place to develop and get a 2K DPX scan that won't break the bank. I have found a couple labs that have much cheaper rates, but I am a little nervous about them since I have seen a few scans that came out of them that don't look super hot. This is a not for profit production and minimal budget (Aiming for 20K) About 7200 feet of film if we can do a 10:1 ratio. So if you have a lab you absolutely love I would very much appreciate any recommendations you might have. We will be shooting in Chicago but unfortunately I believe all the labs have closed there so location wont be a huge issue since we will have to ship it one way or another.] Thanks in advance for any suggestions and taking the time to read this!

The good news is the magenta band looks static so you should be able to fix it in the grade with a power window, but not sure what would cause such a specific artifact, can only think a defect in the filters somehow? Or some kind of minor light leak on the sensor hitting from a weird angle.

I've also noticed the Angie lenses have a lot of "character" in the form of chromatic aberration on outer edges of the frame (less intense when zoomed in) but there still. The Ziess, even with a 1.4x adapter is still super sharp and crisp. And it does have a macro option but only usable with the lens at its widest zoom, and the zoom becomes your macro focus, so doesn't really solve the issues of close focus until you are inches away, but its a beautiful feature non the less. Also correct on the Ziess telecopes but does not rotate so you can clip a matte box to it if you want to avoid rails etc. There is also a really nice hydraulic zoom dampener to let you get smoother zooms with it.

There are two conversions of the Ziess 10-100, the Optex kit which is no longer produced but some shops still have stock, these convert to 12-120 2.4 as mentioned before. Then there are some much rarer 11-110 (2.3?) that were actually upgraded by techs at the Ziess factory, and that was an incredibly expensive upgrade compared to the optex one. The optex upgrade typically comes with a PL conversion as well. These are typically about 2k to get done in the U.S. and include recolomiation of the lens and new focus/iris/zoom marks so that its accurate again. The cheap version is to use a 1.4x telephoto adapter and do the math in your head. I have an Olympus 1.4x MFT teleconverter which I use between my PL->MFT adapter and my BMPCC. About $400 to convert that way until I have the spare cash for a proper optex conversion.

Always always do redundant backups. I always bring at least 2 HDs to set and transfer footage to them both simultaneously, wont touch that card until both drives have the footage and it is CRC checked. Then I will try to budget to buy enough recording media to not have to write-over if I can as a 3rd point of backup until the drives are elsewhere and more secure.